Talk:Stone (disambiguation)

On 23 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Stone. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Stone

True or false: this article belongs at Stone (disambiguation) with Stone being a re-direct to Rock (geology). 66.245.90.100 13:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

False.

Who forgot to sign and explain why false?? 66.245.90.100 13:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Naming conventions. There is no primary topic for stone: no one article which stands out above the rest. Stone can mean rock, which is why this is listed on the disambiguation page, but it can mean plenty of other things as well. Putting a page at "Whatever (disambiguation)" is only used when there is a clear primary topic, in which case you put a note at the top of the primary topic saying for other meanings see the disambiguation page. Are you suggesting that we redirect this to rock (geology), which isn't even a primary topic itself, and then put a note at the top explaining that "stone", which isn't even the title of the article, can refer to other things, for which see stone (disambiguation), which might as well have been at stone in the first place. If this sounds complicated it's because it is. The situation at the moment is fine and is in accordance with all the other disambiguations on Wikipedia. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hate to dredge up this 6-year-old discussion, but I really feel I must. I'm trying to go through the links to this disambig page and absolutely every one so far is meant to point to Rock (geology). Despite what Trilobite says here, there are many other examples where the simple term (here "stone") is a redirect page to a synonymous term (here "rock (geology)"), which mentions that there is a separate disambiguation page for the first term (here "stone (disambiguation)"). Unless someone is extremely opposed to this, I think I'm going to make this change in the near future, but I will give people time to rebut. And if you really want me to try to display the examples of this, I will try to remember them. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo in American English?

I've never heard of the word "stone" being taboo in American English at any point. Can anyone provide a time frame for when this was the case? -- Rebug 23:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on the Taboo in American English comment

Yes, I also ask that an ask that an assertion like this be accompanied by evidence. I've always considered the explosion of the term into various synonyms to be a 'disambiguation', of sorts. Most taboo words in a timeframe as short as that of the history of American English would still carry some negative weight to them even after losing the taboo status. This isn't remotely the case with the word 'stone' as used in America (except perhaps the use of the word 'stones' to refer to testicles, but that seems to be an unlikely reason to taboo every sense of the word).--Drew 23:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to ask the very same question and, since no response has been given in the many months since the asking, I'm going to remove the reference. I can't imagine for the life of me why and when "stone" would have been taboo in American English, and a Google search turned up no evidence of such a thing. Moncrief 05:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for my little joke

you don't need citatins for evrything, do you?

yours the stone

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.234.240.105 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stone (disambiguation) → Stone — relisted to hopefully generate consensus about Stone (Imperial mass) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)I find it rather odd that Rock is a disambiguation page but that Stone redirects to Rock (geology). If Rock (geology) is not a primary topic for Rock, how is it for Stone?[reply]

Moreover, I believe the word stone in English could equally refer to an imperial measure as to a chunk of stone, although I do appreciate this is not the case in the US.

Btw, the creation edit on the Stone redirection page refers to a discussion which previous took place but I can't seem to find any such discussion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would gather that Rock (geology) is not a primary topic due Rock music whereas Stone has no such competition. Several primary topics are redirects even though there are multiple entities with that name (e.g., Siam, poplar). Having said all that, Stone (Imperial mass) does compete with Rock (geology) enough to challenge its primacy. — AjaxSmack 01:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the edit summary just says "see talk page," which is referring to my attempt above to have a discussion about the move. And Ajax is right about Rock music easily challenging the primacy of Rock, but Stone not really having any such competition, except for possibly Stone (Imperial mass). That unit of measurement is obviously never used in the U.S. and I had gathered that it was not used in the U.K. anymore either, since the article says it ceased to be legal for trade and there is no longer a British empire. I guess you folks are saying that it's still in common use? -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article notes, it's used commonly for people. It has the advantage of being vaguer that kilos or pounds and thus no doubt more pleasing to the weight sensitive. I'm not sure myself if it really can dethrone "rock" as the primary meaning. — AjaxSmack 02:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; I believe people looking for "stone" are most likely looking for rocks, where as people looking for "rock" may be looking for the music genre. Powers ^T 00:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stone (disambiguation) → Stone
Stones (disambiguation) → Stones

– No clear primary topic for the singular or plural, Rock (geology) has 17,536 views but Stone (unit) has 12,081[[1]]. This likely makes the rock meaning not much more likely than any other since it also includes the usage for "Rock(s)" though the rock meaning may be primary by long-term significance. Stone (2010 film) has 2,200, Stone, Staffordshire has 1,438 and Stone (1974 film) has 1,395 though the films probably lack long-term significance, Dr. Stone has more (28,549)[[2]] but is a PTM. According to the DAB The Rolling Stones is often called "the Stones" which has 169,893 views[[3]]. Google results for Stone returns nothing for the rock meaning on the 1st page of results but does return the WP articles for the town in Staffordshire and unit and the Britannica article for the unit. Images does return only the rock meaning and while Books returns the rock first, the other results aren't for it though they appear to be PTMs. Google for Stones returns the WP article for the band and the unit, Images returns only the rock and Books returns the band first. Its possible that there is no primary topic for the singular but for the plural there is but due to the existence of the unit also being countable as well as the band being a target there seems to be no primary topic for the plural either. There was a contested request made by User:CactiStaccingCrane, @Amakuru and Kj cheetham: who contested. The Stone redirect could be moved to Stone (geology) or similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should throw Dr. Stone and the Rolling Stones out. I’ve never heard Dr. Stone simply referred to as stone and while the band is often known as The Stones I am not aware of them being simply known as stones. In other world I doubt that someone looking up the anime or band would be using these specific search terms.--70.24.251.91 (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Thanks for the Ping Crouch. For me this is longterm significance ptopic. Like bell, apple etc, we don't really need to consider the other topics too closely because stone and stones so clearly has long term encyclopedic meaning of rocks. The unit of weight is perhaps the only slight interesting case, but I don't think it's really on the same level of importance as the rock anyway, and aldo it's only used in the commonwealth and is becoming increasingly obsolete compared with kg. — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, comparing views over longer span, geology is consistently on top by significant margin aside from occasional short spikes. While the case for primary topic based on usage alone is not overwhelming, I think case based on long-term significance is much stronger. older ≠ wiser 09:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the geologic topic is clearly the primary topic. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews aside, it suffices to say that no, the meaning "rock" has faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more educational significance than a manga, a band, a unit of weight, etc. Oppose. I don't think I put enough a's in that "far", however. Red Slash 17:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others have said, nothing more to add. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on! I know this seems ludicrous at first, but only until you consider that 1) geology and the natural sciences seem to use the term "rock" and not "stone" (ever heard of igneous stones? me neither!); 2) when the word "stone" is used in a similar sense in everyday English, it means a particular source material for human artefacts ("the building is made of stone") – we don't seem to have a dedicated article about that, the coverage is split between Rock (geology)#Human use, Building material#Stone or rock, and possibly Dimension stone and Crushed stone; 3) when not used in everyday language for the material or substance, the word "stone" refers to a stand-alone object, like a pebble or a cobble – these are clasts within a particular size range (though I'd like to see geologists' feedback on which is the general article covering this meaning); 4) there are significant non-overlaps between the senses listed so far: for example, coal is a type of rock but you'd never refer to it as "stone", conversely, the "stone" used for a building may not be derived from rock but entirely artificial; 5) the word "stone" can have a range of other common meanings: beside the unit of mass, there's also the stones of kidneys and gall bladders, or the pits of cherries, peaches and other drupes. We have a highly ambiguous term with a range of everyday meanings, the case is not at all like that of apple or bell. Pings to Amakuru, Bkonrad, Red Slash and Kj cheetham if they're interested in reconsidering. – Uanfala (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very clear primary redirects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.